The Congress Ideology and Programme, 1920-1985: The Ideological Foundations of Indian National Congress Under Gandhian Leadership and After

Citation preview

The Congress Ideology and Programme (1920-1985)

(The Ideological Foundations of Indian National Congress Under Gandhian Leadership and After) a*

P.D. KAUSHIK

Gitanjali Publishing House

THE CONGRESS IDEOLOGY AND PROGRAMME (1920—1985)

© P.D. Kaushik

ISBN 81-85060-16-9

Published by : Gitanjali Publishing House Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.

Printed at : New Era Printers B-223, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-28

Preface to the Second Edition

This edition contains two additional chapters on the postIndependence Congress. One deals with the continuity and change in the character of the Indian National Congress after Independence. The other discusses the various facets of the post-Independence ideology of the Congress. The treatment of the post-Independence Congress is not comprehensive. Indeed any such attempt would have required another full length book. But attempt has been made to cover all the essential points and project a clear and coherent view of the post-Independence Congress and its ideology. I will be failing in my duty if I do not express my deep gratitute to my wife Shrimati Ramola Rani Kaushik, who has been a source of constant inspiration and to my friend Professor V. N. Khanna, who has rendered invaluable help in the prepar¬ ation and publication of this edition. I am also thankful to M/s Gitanjali Publishing House, specially to Shri Sanjeev Sondhi whose help facilitated the publication of the new edition of the book.

P.D. KAUSHIK B /190, Brij Enclave Colony. Sunderpur, Varanasi-221005 Aug u st 15, 1986

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/congressideologyOOOOkaus

CONTENTS Chapter

Pages

1.

The Congress Before Gandhi

2.

Gandhi and the Congress

35—59

✓ 3.

Nature of the Congress Ideology and Programme

60-83

4.

TheGandhian Concept of Swaraj—The Political Creed of the Congress

84—113

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. /12.

1—34

The Gandhian Economics and The Economic Creed of the Congress

114—146

The Gandhian Programme for Socio-Cultural Reform and the Socio-Cultural Creed of the Congress

147—178

— Appendix to Chapter 6

179—189

Means and Methods—Satyagraha and the Constructive Programme

190—236

The Congress Struggle for Swaraj—The Direct Action Front

237—273

The Congress Struggle for Swaraj—The Constitutional Front

274—303

The Congress and the Communal Problem

301—350

—Appendix to Chapter 10

351—360

The Congress and the World Affairs

361—388

The Character of the Post-Independence Congress

389-406

viii xi3. 14.

The Post-Independence Ideology of the Congress 407—436

Has Congress Betrayed Gandhij i?

437—451

Appendices

452—457

List of Abbreviations

458

Bibliography

459—471

!ndex

473—483

1 The Congress Before Gandhi

THE CONGRESS IDEOLOGY AND PROGRAMME : SOURCES & BACKGROUND

Is India a Nation ? A few years back this was one of the most hotly debated question about our motherland, but today one hardly raises the question and India is unhesitatingly recognized as a nation. The credit for this happy state of things goes, if it can ever go to one organization and one man, to the Indian National Congress and its mentor—Mahatma Gandhi. Writing about the Nineteenth century India, Seeley described it as a “geographical expression.”1 2 It was obviously an exagge¬ ration because ever since the composition of inimitable ‘Vedas' by Ary 14

justice. “If you go on making your appeal/’ said Bishan Narayan Dhar at Allahabad Congress of 1888, “with firmness, courage and moderation to the great English Nation, they will assuredly respond to your prayers, for as the harp responds to the harper’s touch, so does the great deep heart of England respond to every reasonable prayer for justice and freedom.’’i7 But as if the Government was determined to destroy this illusion the pay of Indians in higher services was further reduced to Rs. 250 p.m. in 1889.48 Naturally, Indians began to lose their faith in the British sense of justice and the official report of the Congress for the year 1889 records that a suspicion is “beginn¬ ing to gain ground in India, that England’s policy towards us is changing, and is no longer actuated by quite those noble and lofty motives that, in bye-gone days, threw a halo round the British name.”49 The policy adopted by succeeding Viceroys deepened this suspicion. Lord Lansdowne (1888-1894) adopted an exchange and currency policy which was manifestly detri¬ mental to Indian interests. In the regime of Lord Elgin (1894-98) Plague Administration was carried with such rigour and caused so such discontent that Mr. Rand, the LC.S. officer in charge of these measures, was murdered. His successor Lord Curzon (1899-1905) was even more tyrannical and despite his many qualities he proved himself true to a parody by one of his contemporaries at Balliol : My I My I

name is George Nathaniel Curzon am a very superior person cheek is pink may hair is sleek dine at Blenheim once a week.60

A conservative and reactionary imperialist to the core, he pursued such a repressive policy that “for the first time in

1903-.. the voice of the extremist in Indian politics attracted 47. Report of the Fourth Indian National Congress, Allahabad (1888), p. 91. 48. Annie Besant, How India Wrought For Freedom, p. 235. 49. Report of the Fifth Indian Nationnal Congress, p. XLV1.

Bombay

50. D. D. Karmarka, Bal Gangadhar Tilak=A Study, p. 115.

(1889),

The Congress Before Gandhi attention.”01

He

crowned

15

his

oppressive regime with the

supreme folly of partitioning Bengal in 1905, which set the Ganges on fire and not only Bengal but :the whole India felt insulted, humiliated and tricked. It resulted in an all India agitation against it, gave rise to the “Swadeshi” movement and even the ‘loyal’ Congress lent support to the boycott of the British goods. The next two Viceroys, however, discarded Curzonian policy of ‘clinched fist’ and followed a policy of reform and conciliation instead. Lord Minto gave us the famous Minto-Morley Reforms of 1909 and Lord Hardinge annulled the partition of Bengal. These measures gave new life to India’s dying faith in British sense of justice. Pandit Bishen Narayan Dhar, the President of the Congress in 1911, placed the whole blame on “the growth of an unsympathetic and illiberal spirit in the bureaucracy towards the new born hopes and ideals of the Indian people,”52 and declared in unequivocal terms that : The Royal boons not only are a proof of British justice and benevolence, they show that...if we appeal to it in a just cause and convince it by our persistent and patriotic endea¬ vours, it will never fail to respond to our appeal.53 Even as late as April 1915, this faith was so strong that Gandhi could say : “That the British empire had certain ideals with which I have fallen in love.’’54 The First World War (1914-18), however, changed the whole situa'ion. Throughout the war the whole of India, including Congress, stood as one man with the Government. Even the British Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, gratefully acknowledged the services rendered by India and promised that in future Indian questions would be viewed from a different angle. This raised high hopes in Tndia, Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’ added fuel to fire. But when India hoped for the bread it got the stone. Instead of self-government Britain gave India Rowlatt Act and 51. C. Y. Chintamani, Indian Politics Since the Mutiny, p. 54. 52. Congress Presidential Addresses, Second Series, 1911-1934, p. 12. 53. Ibid., p. 5. 54. H. S. L. Polak, ed.), p. 25.

Mahatma Gandhi—The Man and His Mission (8sh

16

Congress Ideology and Programme

the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh. This and further repressive measures destroyed India’s faith in British justice' The result was simple. Instead of‘'loyalty to British Crown” “Swaraj” or “independence” became the keynote of the Congress ideology and “petitions and prayers” were replaced by “non-violent nonco-operation” and “constructive programme.” Last but not the least, the advent of Gandhi was also an event of first rate importance and did much to revolutionize the Congress ideology and programme. External Environment The Colonial Model. Among the external factors which in¬ fluenced the development of the Congress ideology and pro¬ gramme, the most important was the constitutional structure of Britain and its colonies. Both with regard to ends as well as means the colonial model served as a light-house for the Congress. As early as 1886, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya asked from the Congress platform : What is an Englishman without representative institutions ? ...how they have the face to call themselves Englishmen and yet deny us representative institutions ..55 The very first article of the very first Constitution of the Congress—the Consititution of 1908—laid down that : The objects of the Indian National Congress are the attain-ment by the people of India of a system of government similar to that enjoyed by the self-governing Members of the British Empire.56 Thus the Congress, almost from the very beginning, demand¬ ed democratic instituti ms based on the colonial model. It also demanded the freedom of adopting and did adopt the means 55. Report o’ the Second Indian p. 107. 56.

National Congress,

Calcuttta (1886).

M. V. Ramana Rao, Development of the Congress Constitution, pp. 11-

12.

The Congress Before Gandhi

17

which were used by the British people for safeguarding their liberties. “Agitation,” said Dadabhai Naoroji in 1906, “is the life and soul of the whole political, social and industrial history ot England. ..The whole life of England everyday is all agitation ...From the Prime Minister to the humblest politician, hisoccupation is agitat on for everything he wants to accomplish. The whole Parliament, Press and Platform is simply all agitation. Agitation is the civilized peaceful weapon of moral force, and infinitely preferable to brute physical force, when possible... Agitate ; agitate means inform. Inform ; inform the Indian people what their rights are and how and why they should obtain them, and inform the British people of the rights of theIndian people, and why they should grant them.”-'7 The International Scene. The successive world events alsoplayed an important part in shaping the Congress ideology and programme. The French and American revolutions, the Italian and Pish struggles for national liberation always remained perennial fountains of inspiration to Indian nationalists and taught them the gospel of equality, liberty and fraternity. Then in 1995 came that titanic conflict in the East between European Russia and Asiatic Japan which symbolized the victory of Asia over Furope. It destroyed the myth of the invincibility of Europe and created a tremendous self consciousness throughout Asia. The Young Turk movement in Turkey and the Chinese revolution further increased the hunger for reform and indepen¬ dence in India. From China India learnt the lesson of “boycott.” When Bengal was panitioned in 1905, the Chinese were conduc¬ ting a successful campaign of boycott of American goods, as a mark of their protest against the exclusion of Chinese immi¬ grants into the United States. Tndi saw that here was a weapon' which could prove deadlv against British bureaucracy and readily adopted it.*8 Then came the First World War. the result of which in the words of Professor Rushb-ook Williams, was ‘ to ablaze the embe-s of old Nationalist ambitions bearing with it the spark of new fires, which readily seized upon < ombustible 57. Congress Presidential Address, First Series, 18S5-1910, pp. 778-40.' 58.

n.

M non-interference with States meant only this much that the Congress was not to take “any executive action in connection with them, as for instance holding a hostile demonstration in the Native States against any action of theirs.” But it “did not preclude the Congress from ventilating the grievances and aspirations of these States.”92 From this flowed the second characteristic of the Congress policy before 1928, namely, that it did ventilate the grievances and aspirations of the people of States. As early as 1920 it earnestly requested— “all the Sovereign Princes of India to take immediate steps to establish full responsible Government in States.”93 And as late as 1927 it was— ...emphatically of opinion that in the interests of both the Rulers and the people of Indian States they should establish representative institutions and responsible Government in, their States at an early date.”94 89. Presidential Address at the Third Kathiavvad Political Conference, June 8, 1925, The Indian Quarterly Register, 1925, Vol. I, p. 410. 90. In D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Vol. II, p. 235, the word used is ‘impotence’ instead of ‘importance’. 91. The Indian Quarterly Register, 1925, Vol. 1, p. 409. 92. Young India, January 5, 1921. 93. Indian National Congress, 1920-23, p. 36. 94. The Indian Annual Register, 1927, Vol. 11, p. 411.

108

Congress Ideology and Programme

Thirdly the Congress supported Princes against any injustice done to them by the Paramount Power. Especially it repeatedly condemned the action of the Government of India in bringing about the forced abdication of the Raja of Nabha.95 Thus till 1927 the Congress policy towards the States was one of non-interference, but in 1928 it had to revise its policy because of the growing political consciousness in States. Till the end of 1926 the States’ people 1 ad no broad based organization, but in 1927 an organization known as “The Indian States’ Peoples Conference” came into being and declared “the attain¬ ment of responsible government for the people in the Indian States through representative institutions under the aegies of their rulers ’ as its aim.96 Gandhi too realized that States had an important place in any scheme of Indian policy and conceded them their proper status in Indian Swaraj.97 Little wonder that tt e Calcutta Congress (1928) not only urged the Ruling Princes to introduce responsible government based on representative institutions in the States” but also assured “the people of the Indian States of its sympathy with and support in their legiti¬ mate and peaceful struggle for the attainment of full responsible government in the States.’’ What is more it tried to lay down the foundation on which the place of responsible government was to be built and asked the Princes “to issue immediately proclamations or enact laws guaranteeing elementary and fundamental rights of citizenship, such as right of association, free speech, free press and security of person and property.”98 This revision of the Congress policy towards States in 1928 was an important step towards the recognition of the proper status of States in anv scheme of Swaraj, yet it did not recognize them as the essential part of the scheme of Swaraj. The official policy of the Congress towards States was still that of non-inter¬ ference. But there was a gaowing demand to revise this policy. 95.

For example refer to Resolution No. IV, Delhi (Special) Congress, September 1923; Resolution No. X, Calcutta A.l.C C. October 1927: Resolution No. XVII, Calcutta Congress, 1928. 96. Coupland, The Indian Problem, Part I, p. 91. 97. Refer P. Sitaramayya, Gandhi and Gandhism, Vol. I, p. 15. 98. The Indian Quarterly Register, 1928, Vol. II, p. 371.

The Political Creed of the Congress

109

The leftists under the leadership of Jawahar and Subhas continu¬ ously demanded a more radical policy. They refused to regard the States as ‘separate units’ and demanded the right of self determination for their people. “The Indian States,’’ declared Jawahar Lai Nehru as early as 1929 “cannot live apart from the rest of India and their rulers must, unless they accept inevitable limitations, go the way of others who thought like them. And the only people who have a right to determine the future of States must be the people of these States including the rulers.”89 He was clear and emphatic that “The future has no place for autocracy or feudalism; a free India cannot tolerate the subjec¬ tion of many of her children and their deprivation of human rights, nor can it ever agree to a dissection of its body and a cutting up of its limbs.”100 Yet till 1934 the Congress strictly adhered to the Calcutta re¬ solution. But in August 1935 the Working Committee issued a lengthy statement, which though apparently reaffirmed the Calcutta stand and insisted “that the responsibility and the burden of carrying on that struggle within the States must necessarily fall on the States’ people themselves,” conceded many points to Nehru-Bose outlook. It recognized that “the people of India whether under the British, the Princes or any other Power are geographically and historically one and indivi¬ sible.” It not only requested for the introduction of responsible government but also insisted “that the people in the Indian States have an inherent right to Swaraj no less than the people of British India.”101 Yet it has to be admitted that the Congress policy largely remained wedded to the view that it would be unwise and dangerous for the Congress to interfere in the affairs of the States. It was reserved for the year 1938 to discredit this view and revolutionize the Congress policy. The year 1938 occupies an important place in the history of our national struggle. Nehru has called it “the year of...mighty 99. Congt ess Presidential Address, Second Series, 1911-34, p. 895. 100. Report of the Forty-Ninth Session of the Indian National Congress, Lucknow (April 1936), p. 29. 101. The Indian National Congress, 1933-36, pp. 52-54.

J10

Congress Ideolo >y and Pro gramme

awakening among the people of the States.”102 One might call it a year of awakening for the Congress because it was in this year that the Congress realized that Swaraj, if it was to be real, must visualize a united India including British India as well as the States and the policy of non-interference must be drastically revised. Important leaders like Nehru and Bose clearly recogniz¬ ed that conflict in the States was really a conflict with British imperialism and only incidentally with the Rulers. The Federal Scheme proposed by the Government of India Act 1935 convinc¬ ed them that the princes were deliberately being used as tools against the nationalist movement; their independence was being paraded in order to destroy the unity of India and to place obstacles in the way of the establishment of a Central All India Government. They found that the Government was persistently helping the Princes in crushing the popular movements in their respective States and the people were crying for the help of the Congress. They rea'ized the justice of this cry and pleaded for giving all possible help to the people of States. Yet the conversion of the Congress to the new policy was not a smooth affair. Gandhi was still unconvinced of the wis¬ dom of renouncing the policy of non-interference. He wanted that the States’ people should not depend on external aid for their internal agitation and the Congress, while giving its moral support, should not take any direct action in the States. The result was a compromise resolution at Haripura which emphasi¬ zed the following things : (1) Firstly it made it clear that “The ‘Purna Swaraj’ or Commplete Independence, which is the objective of the Congress is for the whole of India, inclusive of the States, for the integrity and the unity of India must be maintained in freedom as it has been maintained in subjection.” (2) Secondly it defined the objective of the Congress to¬ wards the States as “full responsible government and the guarantee of civil liberty in the States.” (3) Thirdly it accepted the policy of inference in principle 102. J.L. Nehru, Unity of India, p. 26.

The Political Creed of the Congress ard stated that “The Congress considers it its right and privilege to work for the attainment of this objective in the States.” (4) But it ruled out “direct interference” by the Congress organization for practical reasons. It emphatically as¬ serted that freedom movements in the States “are likely to develop more rapidly and to have a broader basis, if they draw their strength from the people of the States, produce self-reliance in them, and are in tune with the conditions prevailing there, and do not rely on extra¬ neous help and assistance or on the prestige of the Congress name.” It insisted that “It is not in conso¬ nance with the dignity of the Congress to have local committees which cannot function effectively, or to tolerate indignitv to the National Flag” and directed that “for the present, Congress Committees in the States shall function under the direction and control of the Congress Working Committee and shall not engage in parliamentary activity, nor launch the direct action in the name and under the auspices of the Congress. For this Purpose independent organizations should be started and continued where they exist already within the States.” (5) Yet while it ruled out direct interference it fully con¬ ceded a programme of indirect interference and resolved that “Individual Congressmen, however, will be free to render further assistance in their personal capacity.”103 This ban on direct interference, however, could not last long. Within a year Gandhi admitted that “the movement for liberty within the Sates is entering a new stage,”104 Nehru declared that “the Congress will certainly intervene in the States if the Indian Government intervene to crush the people”103 and the Tripuri Congress recognized that “the great awakening that is 103. Report of the Fifty-First Indian National Congress, Haripura (1938), , pp. 206-08. 104. Harijan, January 28, 1939. 105. Indian Annual Register, 1939, Vol. I, p. 11.

112

Congress ideology and Progra nme

taking place among the people of States may lead to a relaxa¬ tion or to a complete removal of the restraint which the Congress imposed upon itself, thus resulting in an ever increasing identi¬ fication of the Congress with the States’ people. The Working Committee is authorized to issue instructions in this behalf from time to time as occasion arises.”103 In practice also the Con¬ gress did interfere in States specially in Mysore, Travancore, Jaipur and Rajkot.107 Thus by the end of the first quarter of the year 1 39 it became clear that Swaraj’ was to mean not mere Dominion Status but Complete Independence and the Complete Indepen¬ dence was to mean the independence not only of British India but of the whole of India, inclusive of the States which are integral parts of India, which cannot be separated and which must have the same measure of political, social, economic, and religious freedom as the rest of India.”108 Content of Swaraj The Congress was always reluctant to define the content of Swaraj. As C.R. Das stated in August 1924 “they did not want any particular system of Government, they wanted to establish their own system of government.”100 The Congress was against confining Swaraj to any particular system of government or to any particular socio-economic structure. Yet two things stand out very clearly about the content of Swaraj : (1) Firstly that politically it was to be a democratic concept meaning by that a government “for the people and by the people”110 based on the principles of self deter106. RePort of the p. 166.

Fifty-Second Indian National Congress,

Tripun (1939)

107. For’details Refer D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Vol. V, pp 54-55.

’ 30

32 ’

’

108. Report of the Fifty-Second Indian National Congress, Tripuri (1939) p. 166. ’ 109. The Indian Quarterly Register, 1924, Vol. II, p 133 110. C.R. Das in Congress Presidential Addresses, Second Series,

1911-34,

The Political Creed of the Congress

113

mination, local autonomy, civil liberties and funda¬ mental rights. (2) Secondly it was not to be a merely political concept, but a comprehensive creed embracing the moral as well as the political, social as well as the economic well being of the nation. The moral, social and economic content of Swaraj will be discussed in a later chapter but here in a nutshell we may say that morally Swaraj consisted in “a definite acceptance of means and a real change of heait on the part of people.”111 Socially, it was expressed in the ever evolving Constructive Programme of Gandhi and the Karachi Resolution on Fundamental Right and economically it derived its inspiration partly from the Constructive Programme of Gandhi and partly from the Socialistic Programme of Nehru.

111. Young India, November 17, 1921.

5 The Gandhian Economics and The Economic Creed of the Congress

ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY OF THE CONGRESS

The Economic Ideology of the Indian National Congress was mainly the creation of two great leaders of modern India namely, Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Manv believe that it was Pandit Nehru rather than the Mahatma who was the real architect of the economic creed of the Congress. It is true that the economic ideology of the Congress was, on the whole, more near to Nehru’s ideas than to Gandhi’s ideas. Yet it would be a mistake to minimize Gandhi’s contribution. The Congress refused to subscribe to many items of Gandhian economics, yet Gandhi’s Constructive Programme was an integral part of the economic creed of the Congress. Moreover it was not Nehru—the Marxist who shaped the Congress ideology, but a Nehru who, though a keen and appreciative student of Marx, remained in the ultimate analysis a loyal disciple of Gandhiji. Gandhi's Economics Nature of Gandhi's Economics. The nature of Gandhian economics is a moot question. On the one hand the followers of Marx have condemned him as “an agent of capitalists,”1 on h Swami Kumaranand at Patna A.I.C.C., May 1934, The Indian Annual Register, 1934, Vol. I, p. 292.

The Economic Creed of the Congress he other, his admirers maintain that,

115

“if practice matters more

than theory then Gandh.ji is much more truly a communist than most ol tnose who call themselves by the name.”2 Thus Gandhi has been condemned as a bourgeois and socialist.

applauded as a true

But now a days even many confirmed Communists

■agree that,

“it is silly to aver that Gandhi acted as the cons¬

cious and willing tool of the bourgeoisie”2 3 different from Marxism. Gandhiji s

“writings,”

says

strongly socialistic tendency.

Yet Gandhism is

Horace Alexander,

He is

at

“have a

least a convinced so¬

cializes ”4 5 One of the guiding principles of Gandhian economics is that the needs of the community and the service of the poor should always get priority over selfish individual interests. He wanted to

win Swaraj

toiling and unemployed

not for the millionaires but for those millions, who do not get even a square

meal a day and have to scratch along with a piece of stale ‘roti’ and a pinch of salt.1

He was also as much aware of the need

of economic equality as Marx was.

To him economic equality

is the master key to non-violent independence...A non-violent system of government is clearly an impossibility so long as the wide gulf between the rich and hungry millions persist.”6 In face ol such evidence it it is clearly uncharitable to call stooge of capitalists. says Louis

Fischer,

Gandhi a

Birla’s “outlay for Gandhian enterprises,” ran into millions of rupees...But had the

occasion demanded, Gandhi might have led a strike of Birla’s mill workers, as he did in the case of his friend and financial backer, Ambalal Sarabhai of Ahmedabad.”7 True,

labour was

not the central figure in his economic philosophy but his place was taken not by capitalist but by peasant. He was against state-

2.

Horace Alexander, Political Ideas of Mahatma Gandhi in Horace Alexander, Nirmal Kumar Bose, J.C. Kumarappa, P.A. Wadia, p s

Ramanathan, Social and Political Ideas of Mahatma Gandhi, Publish¬ ed by Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi Oct 1949 n 9 3. Hiren Mukherjee, Gandhiji A Study, p. 86. 4. Horace Alexander and Others, Social And Political Ideas of Mahatma Gandhi, p. 8. 5. Refer, Young India, March 26, 1931. 6. Constructive Programme—Its Meaning and Place, pp. 20-21 7. Louis Fischer, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, p. 403.

Congress Ideology and Programme

116

ownership but his ideal was not private-ownership but villageownership.8 “Real socialism,” he wrote, “has been handed down to us by our ancestors. ‘All land belongs to Gopal, where is the boundary line?’.. Gopal...also means God. In modern language it means....the people.and all property is his who will work it”9 His theory of Trusteeship has been wrongly criticized by communists as an “insidious weapon” for lulling the ‘havenots.'0 In reality Gandhi’s views about private property were more radical than that of communists. “He would 1 ke to dis¬ possess every person of all kinds of belongings. If he tolerates the institution of private property, it is not because he loves it or holds it to be necessary for the progress of humanity, but because he has yet to discover a truthful and non-violent method of abolishing that institution.’’11 His ideal was com¬ plete renunciation. Trusteeship was only the second best. And when he found that the response of ‘haves’ was not encourag¬ ing he accepted the idea of nationalization of industries and dispossession of ‘haves’ through legislation. A tentative con¬ stitution for free India, which had his approval contained inter alia : Every citizen shall have the right to obtain a minimum living wage through honest work or employment. .no servant of the State shall be paid more than Rs. 500 per month. Inheritance Taxes on a graduated scale shall be levied on property above a fixed minimum. The following types of wealth which are now owned by pri¬ vate capitalists shall become national property : (a) All the land shall belong to the State ; private landlords and Zamindari systems of land tenure will, therefore, cease to exist. The State shall grant long leases to those farmers who actually till the soil. 8. Refer, Abid Hussain, The way of Gandhi and Nehru, p. 45. 9. Harijan, April 20, 1940. 10. Refer, Hiren Mukherjee, Gandhiji 4 Study, p. 111. 11. K.G. Mashruwala, Gandhi and Marx, p. 78.

The Economic Creed of the Congress

117

(b) All the Key industries shall be owned by the Nation....(c) Mines, rivers, forests, roads, railways, air transport, posts and telegraphs, shipping and other means of public transport shall be National Property.12 In a way Gandhi’s concern for the underdog was more genuine than that of avowed socialists and communists. He was not an arm-chair philosopher preaching socialism from Olym¬ pian heights but became a concrete incarnation of socialism by actually reducing himself “to the level of the poorest of the poor.”13 There is truth in his claim that,” All the socialists should learn socialism from me.”14 Rightly does Dr. Varraa maintain, “It is a historical blasphemy to represent Gandhi as the protagonist of the Indian bourgeois”15 Thus Gandhian economics was essentially socialitic but his socialism was very different from that of Marx. Marxist sociali¬ sm was materialistic, industrialistic, dictatorial and radical : Gandhi’s moral, agrarian, democratic and conservative. The former is popularly known as Communism, the latter as Sarvodaya. A Moral and Spiritual Socialism Marx regarded social as an economic machine.

He believed

in the theory that end justifies the means and aimed at the establisment of a classless society through violent revolution. Gandhi, on the other hand, regarded society as a spiritual organism. He believed that economic ambitions were good ser¬ vants but bad masters. To him economic activities were a subordinate element, within a vast and complex whole. They were nothing more than material means to be used as an intrument of moral ends. His aim was the establishment of a non¬ violent social order and believed that pure ends could be attained

12. S.N. Agarwal, Gandhian Constitution for Free India, pp. 78, 124-26. 13. Harijan, March 31, 1946 14. Refer, D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Vol. VIII, p. 41. T5. V.P. Varma,

The Political Philosophy

Sarrodaya, p. 13.

of

Mahatma

Gandhi and

1 *°

Congress Ideology and Programme'

only through pure means.16 His was a non-violent socialism.17 He believed that this socialism was “as pure as crystal” and hence “required cryslal like means to achieve it.”18 Yet as K.G. Mashruwala maintained, it would be wrong to equate Gandhism with “Communism plus God” or “Com¬ munism minus violence.”19 The Gandhian way of looking at life and the problems of life was essentially different from the Communist way. To Marx the basic principle was matter ; to Gandhi life or Atma. To Gandhi matter had its being in and by life ; it had no existence independent of life. Life or Atma alone is ‘Satya’ Truth, the ever abiding principle. “.all life is one,” he sa}s, and the whole universe including myself is a mani¬ festation of God. ’-° Marxists regard spiritual qualities as merely the product of economic conditions but to Gandhi spiritual values were the very essence of human existence. To Marx religion was the “opium of the poor,” but to Gandhi “the existence of the world in a broad sense depends on religion.”21 Marx was a materialistic thinker. His was a philosophy of attachment and he laid great stress on a ‘high standard of living, but Gandhism is a philosophy of renunciation based on the principle of simple living and high thinking.’ “Civili¬ zation in the real sense of the term,” said Gandhi, “consists not in the multiplication, but in the delieberate and voluntary restriction of wants. This alone promotes real happiness and contentment, and increases the capacity for service.”22 Marxism is a philosophy of hate. Gandhism a philosophy of love. Gandhi rejected the Marxist theory of class war which envisaged permanent and irrevocable antagonism between haves and have nots’ especially between capital and labour. Capital and Labour,’ he maintained, “need not be antagoni~ 16. Refer, D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Vol. Ill, p. 376. 17. Refer, Harijan, February 13, 1937. 18. Refer, Ibid., July 13, 1947. 19.

Refer, K.G. Mashruwala, Gandhi and Marx, p. 87.

20. Refer, K.G. Mashruwala, Gandhi and Marx, pp. 43-52. 21. Harijan, August 25, 1940. 22. M.K. Gandhi, From Yeravda Mandir. pp. 24-25.

The Economic Creed of the Congress

119

Stic.”23 “A labourer’s skill is his capital. Just as the capitalist cannot make his capital fructify without the co-operation of labour, even so the working man cannot make his labour fructify without the co-operation of capital_they would get to repect each other as equal partners in a common enterprise.’'24 Gandhi had immense faith in the essential goodness of human nature. He refused to believe that there were only two ways of converting a ruler—either by beheading him or by making him abdicate. His way was to make the ruler socialist through love — through Bread, Labour and Trusteeship. Bread, Labour and Trusteeship. The theory of Bread and Labour is based on the principle of the sanctity and dignity of labour. It postulates that, “every healthy individual must labour enough for his food and his intellectual faculties must be exercised not in order to obtain a living or amass a fortune but only in the ser¬ vice of mankind.”25 Gandhi believed that, “If all laboured for their bread and no more, then there would be enough food and enough leisure for all...There will then be no rich and no poor; none high, none low ; no touchable and no untouchable.”26 According to the doctrine of Trusteeship the rich are to be left in possession of their wealth but they must regard themselves not owners but trustees of their wealth and use it for the service of society, taking for themselves no more than a fair return for service rendered. Gandhi assumed honesty on the part of the trustee, but if the rich do not become trustees of their wealth, then Gandhi advised non-violent, non-co-operation and civil disobedience as the right and infallible remedy, because “The rich cannot accumulate wealth without the co-operation of the poor in society.”27 This theory of Trusteeship is the central point of the econo¬ mic policy which Gandhi contemplated for the national govern¬ ment of India. When in 1929 Gandhi propounded his theory, he expected generous response from Indian capitalists and Zamin23.

Young India, January 7, 1926.

24. Harijan, July 3, 1937. 25. M.K. Gandhi, Economic and Industrial Life and Relations, Vol. I, p. 80. 26. Harijan, June 29, 1935. 27. Ibid., August 25, 1940.

120

Congress Ideology and Programme

dars. But in actual practice the response was found to be utterly poor. Consequently Gandhi revised his views. He accepted the idea of Statutory Trusteeship28 and while in the beginning he seemed to assume that the trusteeship vould be inherited by the son, he declared in 1938 that, "A trustee has no heir but the public.” 9

An Agrarian Socialism

Marx’s socialism was urban and industrial, Gandhi’s peasant and agrarian. India is a peasant country whose more than 85 per cent population depend on agriculture. It was natural there¬ fore, that peasant and not industrial labour occupied the central place in Gandhian philosophy which has also come to be known as Villagism or Gramism. A decentralized rural economy consis¬ ting of small self-sufficient village communities was Gandhi’s ideal. In his ideal society nothing will be allowed to be produc¬ ed by cities which can be equally well produced by villages. The proper function of cities is to serve as clearing houses for village products.” He wanted “to resuscitate the village of India.”30 For this he evolved a detailed constructive programme of Khadi and Village Industries.31 Village Reconstruction through Khadi and Village

Industries.

Gandhi’s constructive programme was based on the principle of decentralization. Gandhi believed that centralization necessarily involved violence or exploitation either by the individual or the state.,,! Hence he worked out the blue print of a decentralized economy which envisaged the establishment of autonomous rural communities

which

were to attain economic self-sufficiency

through an elaborate constructive programme of Khadi and small scale Cottage or Village Industries. From 1908 till his death spinning wheel or Khadi remained 28. Refer, Havijan, March 31, 1946. 29. Harijan, April 13, 1938. 30. Ibid., January 28, 1939. 31. Ibid., October 9, 1937. 32. Reter, S.N. Agarwal, Gandhian Constitution for Free India, pp. 51-66.

The Economic Creed of the Congress

121

the central sun of Gandhi’s constructive village industries pro¬ gramme, but its meaning and implications went on changing. From 1908 to 1920 he emphasized it as the most suitable subsi¬ diary industry which could bring relief to poor peasants. During Non-co-operation and Civil Disobedience movements of 1920s and 1930s Khadi assumed a political importance. Gandhi began to view it as an embodiment of Ahimsa, a necessary training and preparation for Satyagraha and a living link between rich and the poor.33 Gandhi also came to regard it as the foundation of non-violent socialism and tried to perfect its economics. He con¬ cerned himself with problems of production and distribution of wealth and endeavoured to popularize the spinning wheel with a view to prevent concentration of power and capital and to bring about an equitable distribution. In 1925 he established the All India Spinners' Association and in 1934 founded the All India Village Industries’ Association, first with the object of making the whole of India khadi-clad and the second with the object of reviving the moribund cottage industries of India. After 1935 Gandhi’s views on Khadi further underwent a new reorientation. He began to lay emphasis on the ethics rather than the commerce of khaddar. “The essential function of the A.I.S.A. was defined to be centres for imparting instruction in the various processes of khadi production rather than depots for the sale of khadi for money.”34 Thus Khadi became the symbol of a new civilization and to quote Gandhi : It (khadi) connotes the beginning of economic freedom and equality of all in the country...It means a wholesale Swadeshi mentality, a determination to find all the necessaries of life in India and that too through the labour and intellect of the villagers. That means a reversal of the existing process. That is to say that, instead of half a dozen cities of India and Great Britain living on the exploitaion and the ruin of the 700,000 villages of India, the latter will be largely self-con¬ tained, and will voluntarily serve ihe cities and even the out¬ side world in so far as it benefits both the parties.”35 33. Refer, Harijan, August 25, 1946. 34. Pyarelal, Khadi on Trial in Harijan, August 25, 1946. 35. M.K. Gandhi, Constructive Programme—Its Meaning p. 11.

and Place,

122

Congress Ideology and Programme

Machinery and Industrialization within limits. Gandhi’s faith in villagism and decentralization made him an opponent of machinery, industrialization and modern materialistic civilization of West. The “vast differences between the few rich and the poverty-stricken masses seemed to him due to two principal causes : foreign rule and the exploitation that accompanied it, and the capitalist industrial civilization of the west as embodied in the big machine. He reacted against both.”36 His attitude towards machinery and industrialization as symbol ot modern civilization, was adament37 but in early twenties he slightly modi¬ fied his attitude. He began to appreciate the distinction between machinery and industrialization and machinery of one kind and another. He continued to denounce industrialism, i.e., centralized mass ol production with profit as the machinery38 and that some machinery could be used for human welfare, to relieve his drudgery and to lighten his burden.39 His aim became not eradication of all machinery but limitation”40 and he began to favour the use of machinery and scientific discoveries, such as electricity, provided they ceased “to be mere instruments of greed and were adopted for “honest humanitarian considera¬ tions.”41 His programme of Khadi aimed at restoring machine to its proper place in the scheme of life. Thus Gandhi made peace with machinery but his condemna¬ tion of industrialization became all the more severe and he declared cost.”42

:

Our concern is...to destroy industrialism at any

He denounced industrialism not only on the ground that it inevitably led to the exploitation of the villages43 and made man subservient to machines but also on the ground that it was the real cause of international tensions and war because it “enabled

36. J.L. Nehru, The Discovery of India, p. 411. 37 38. 39. 40. 41.

Refer, M.K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, pp. 96-100. Young India, November 3, 1921. Ibid., November 13, 1924. Ibid. Ibid.

42. Ibid., October 7, 1926. 43. Harijan, August 29, 1936.

The Economic Creed of the Congress

123

these (industrially advanced) nations to exploit others.”, In place of centralized large scale industries he advanced his pro¬ gramme ol decentralized cottage industries. As a substitute to ‘mass production’ he raised the slogan of ‘production by masses’ and in 1934 established the All India Village Industries’ Associa¬ tion to put this slogan into practice. Yet he had to recognize the inevitability of some industrialization.44 He ultimately recon¬ ciled himself to the establishment of some ‘key industries’ and bigger factories’ but only on certain conditions. These conditions were :45

(1)

they do not cause unemployment ;

(2)

they are owned or at least controlled by the State ;

(3)

they are run in the spirit of public service ;

(4)

their labouers are given reasonable wages ;

(5)

their work is made attractive and pleasant ;

(6)

nothing is chosen as a ‘key industry’ that can be taken up by the villages with little organization.

Thus Gandhi modified his villagism to some extent, yet large scale industry occupied only a subsidiary place in his scheme of things and as Kumarappa says, ”We (Gandhites) use centralized industries as physicians use poisons. The others hope to use centralized industries as staple food. The centralized methods are to be used with proper safeguards.”46

Gandhi and Industrial Labour. As we have seen, in Gandhian economics peasant occupies the central pi ice, but it does not mean that he ignored industrial labour.

Indeed Gandhi was

keenly alive of the misery of India’s labour and did so much for them that to quote a famous labour leader‘ Gandhiji may

44.

Young India, Octor 22, 1931.

45.

Young India, November 13, 1924; and Harijan, January 28, 1939.

46. Cited in Ilami Markaz (Ed.), p. 157.

What Gandhiji Has Done For India,

124

Congress Ideology and Programme

be counted in a real sense as the first leader of the Indian labour movement.”47 Both in South Africa and India he took keen interest in their welfare and missed no opportunity of helping labour to remove its industrial and social handicaps. In March 1918 he successfully Jed the famous Ahmedabad Labour Satyagraha and on February 25, 1920 he inaugurated the first regular union of the workers in the Indian Textile Industry, namely, Ahmedabad Taxtile Labour Union. From time to time he lent support to the legitimate demands of labour, but he was against indiscriminate strikes48 and severely condemned the exploitation of labour for political purpose.49 A Democratic Socialism Gandhi w as an advocate of a democratic way of life. He was not prepared to sacrifice individual at the alter of equality and looked upon “an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has really lived for the poor.”50 He was opposed to every type of dictatorship—whether of Capitalist or of Proletariat. ‘ I cannot,” says Gandhi, ‘‘accept benevolent or any other dictatorship. Neither will the rich vanish nor will the poor be protected...The real remedy lies in non-violent demo¬ cracy, otherwise spelt true education of all. The rich should be taught the doctrine of stewardship and the poor that of self help.”31 He rejected the Marxian theory of class war and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead he put forward the ideal of‘Sarvodaya’—“the welfare of all” and declared: “I shall work 47. G.L. Nanda in Ilami Markaz (Ed.), India, p. 50.

What Gandhiji Has Done for

48. Refer, M.K. Gandhi, Economic and Industrial Life and Relations Vol. Ill, pp. 154-66. 49. Refer, Young India, February II, 1920. 50. Nirmal Kumar Bose, An Interview with Gandhiji in view, October 1935, Vol. LV1II, No. 4, p. 413. 51. Harijan, June 8, 1940.

The Modern Re¬

The Economic Creed of the Congress

12 5

'

for an India in which the poorest shall feel that it is their country in whose making they have an effective voice.”’'

A Conservative Socialism

It may seem a contradiction in terms, yet it is true that Gandhi’s socialism is at one and the same time revolutionary as well as conservative. While it visualized many revolutionary changes, it, instead of rejecting old terms and ideas and concepts which have been accepted and respected by the community, tried to retain them, give them broader meaning, evolve their forms and infuse new life into them. His doctrines of Bread Labour53 and Trusteeship54 were both based on ancient. Hindu scriptures, and he accepted as the foundation of his socio-economic system not only the agrarian village community but also the ancient Indian concept of Varna Vyavastha (socio-economic order), though he modified it in such a way that on the one hand the danger of a theocratic society and excessive class rig dity could be avoided and on the other hand a bulwark against inter-class strife and disruptive social mobility could be provided. He accep¬ ted the functional division of society into four major classes, i.e.. Brahmin (teacher and priest), Kshatriya (warrior), Vaishya (merchant), Shudra (worker), but he redefined Varna Vyavastha as “following, on the part of us all, the hereditary and traditional calling of our forefathers, in so far as the traditional calling is not inconsistent with fundamental ethics, and this only for the purpose of carrying one’s livelihood.”55 He rejected all caste sub¬ division and also the orthodox Hindu idea that caste status is

52.

Young India, September 10, 1920.

53. “In my view the same principle has been set forth in the third chapter of the Gita, where we are told that he who eats without offering sacrifice, eats stolen food. Sacrifice here can only mean Labour.” M.K. Gandhi, From Yeravda Mandir, p. 35.

Bread-

54. Gandhi believed (refer, Hat ijan, June 3, 1939) that the doctrine of Trusteeship was implicit in the first verse of Ishopanishad. 55.

Young India, October 20, 1927.

126

Congress Ideology and Programme

the result of divine reward and punishment. He made it absolu¬ tely clear that in his Varna Vyavastha “there is absolutely no idea of superiority or inferiority,”56 and ‘‘all the ‘bhangis,’ doctors, lawyers, merchants and others would get the same wages for an honest days work.”57 Thus he made Varna Vyavastha system of healthy division of work based on birth, free from all the ugly features of Hindu caste system. Thus Gandhi propounded a new economic theory based on the principles of non-violence and Truth. He placed before the world an alternative both for Capitalism and Communism. This alternative which is known as ‘Sarvodaya’ was “based on enlightened individualism which is psychologically individualistic but ethically universalistic.’’58 Nehru's Economics

A Synthesis of Gandism and Marxism. Jawahar Lai Nehru who has been acclaimed as “the white hope of world socialism,’,59 has often been depicted, in the field of economic ideology at least, as an opponent of Mahatma and fallower of Marx. There is no doubt that Nehru was greatly influenced by Marx and Lenin, had a deep admiration for the achievements of Soviet Russia and was a trenchant critic of many of Gandhian ideas. Yet it is wrong to call him a Marxist. He was deeply influenced by Mahatma and himself exercised a great influence on Gandhi. Despite all their differences, Nehru is nearer to Mahatma than to Marx, as Mahatma is nearer to Nehru than to Tolstoy. True, he is not a Gandhite, but he is also not a Marxist. His econo¬ mics is a compromise between Gandhi and Marx and though an avowed socialist he acted as a bridge between Marxism and an usm rather than as the spearhead of Marxist movement in I ndia. 56. Ibid. 57. Harijan, January 15, 1938. 5S. P.S. Ramanathan,

The Ethical and Religious

Ideas

of Mahatma

Gandhr, in Horace Alexander and Others, Social and Political Ideas », Mahatma Gandhi, p. 81. 59. K. Shridharani, My India, My West, p. 247.

The Economic Cieed of the CcngresS

127

Nehru or Gandhi In their approaches towards the problems of life, in their aims and in their programme for the attainment of their aims, almost everywhere Nehru partly differed and partly agreed with Gandhi. He represented a considerably different attitude to¬ wards life and its problems. While Gandhi was the pure Satyagrahi of the East. Nehru was the realistic statesman of the West. Gandhi believed in only one ultimate value, i.e., the realization of Truth through love and non-violence. He preached a gospel of renunciation and ‘Anasakti,’ of ‘simple living and high thinking.’ Nehru, on the other hand, refuses to limit himself to the quest of Truth and stands for a life of harmony in vastness and variety. He rejects the idea of voluntary poverty and stands for increasing wealth of India and the standard of jiving of the Indian people 60 Gandhi’s mysticism and mixing of religion and politics does not appeal him. “For a hungry man,” he said on Jan. 3, 1947, “or a hungry woman truth has little meaning, he wants food; for a hungry man God has no meaning, he wants food. And India is a hungry, starving country...”61 As to their aims, Gandhi’s ideal was an equalitarian non¬ violent agrarian society free from exploitation, while Nehru aimed at the establishment of a democratic socialistic state.61 In his opinion “the only key to the solution of world’s problems and India’s problems lies in socialism”63 which means “the ending of all special class privileges and vested interests.”64 He flatly rejected the Gandhian ideal of agrarian society by tersely remarking that, “The village can no longer be a selfcontained economic unit.”65 Besides while the central principle of Gandhian non-violent society is individual freedom, that of Nehru’s socialist state is equality. 60. Refer, J.L. Nehru, Whither India ? p. 36. 61. J.S. Bright (Ed.), Before and After Independence, p. 410. 62. Refer, J.S. Bright (Ed.), Before and After Independence, p. 139. 63. Nehru’s Presidential Address at Lucknow Congress; Report of the Forty-Ninth Session of the Indian National Congress, Lucknow (April 1936), p. 21. 64. J.L. Nehru, Whither India ? p. 21. 65. J.L. Nehru, The Discovery of India, p. 536.

128

Congress Ideology and Programme

As to the means and programme for achieving their res¬ pective ideals Gandhi insists on non-violence but Nehru prefers freedom with violence to subjection with non-violence.”86 Gandhi hoped to bring about non-violent socialism through Bread Labour, Trusteeship, Varna-Vyavastha and decentralized village industries. Nehru is silent about Bread Labour but he rejects the theory ot Trusteeship as '‘barren”. For trusteeship means that the power lor good or evil remains with the self appointed trustee and he may exercise it as he wills. ’The sole trusteeship that can be fair is the trusteeship of the nation and not of one individual or a group.”8? He also opposes caste system as wholly opposed to modern conditions and the democratic ideal” and rejects the idea “that the basic idea of caste might remain but its subsequent harmful development and ramifications should go ; that it should not depend on birth but on merit” as irrelevant and merely confusing.8* He accepts the i ea of decentralized village industries but only to a limited extent and as a subsidiary part of nation’s economy ” an attempt to buildup a country’s economy largely on the tTj^^T T!! SeaIVndUStrieS’” sa*s he> d°omed • I ’ edm refuses to confine himself to non¬ violent means and adocates the dispossession of vested interests even "force1'prinCeS etc”